Colonial Urbanism: A Comparative Exploration of Skeletal Stress in Two Eighteenth Century North American French Colonies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning in the sixteenth century, French exploration in North America was fueled by the increasing desire to expand trade routes to Asia. As an unintended consequence of this exploration, the vast potential of North America was recognized and prompted a push for colonial settlement by the French, with territory that eventually expanded across much of eastern North America. Two such colonies, separated by the bulk of the continent, were Louisbourg along the north Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia and New Biloxi situated on the Gulf of Mexico. Established in 1713, the Fortress of Louisbourg was the seat of the French cod fishery and a military stronghold. In contrast, New Biloxi was an important staging region for French inland expansion into the Louisiana territory in the 1720s. For this research, 26 adult individuals from the Block 3 cemetery at the Fortress of Louisbourg were compared to 25 adult individuals from the Moran cemetery at New Biloxi to assess patterns of skeletal stress in French colonial North America. In general, both groups showed evidence of multiple pathological conditions, and while the Block 3 group had a higher percentage of individuals with evidence of cribra orbitalia, porotic hyperostosis, enamel hypoplastic lesions, caries, antemortem tooth loss, and musculoskeletal markers, these differences were not statistically significant. There were also no significant differences in mean stature between the Block 3 and New Biloxi males and females. However, the New Biloxi males were significantly taller (by 14.1 cm) than the females in this group. While both sites occupied vastly different geographic regions of New France and fulfilled disparate administrative roles, their similar urban population composition and rapid and unstable establishment no doubt contributed to this similar pattern of skeletal stress under the French colonial system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".